The Turin Shroud

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
As of Oviedo cloth I see no problems:

"Following Mark Guscin's highly persuasive arguments concerning the Oviedo cloth or 'sudarium' having been used to cover Jesus' face after his body was removed from the cross, Mario Moroni, of Robbiate, Italy, has written to put on record the facts surrounding the Oviedo cloth's radiocarbon dating, one which attracted altogether less controversy and attention than that of Turin. According to Mario Moroni, on March 20, 1990 one 20.79 mg sample, that had apparently originally been removed from the Oviedo cloth by Dr. Max Frei, was sent to the radiocarbon dating laboratory at the University of Tucson, Arizona, followed by a second, weighing 14 mg, sent to the ISOTRACE radiocarbon dating laboratory of Toronto, Canada on February 5, 1991. When, three years after the laboratories had submitted their findings, the results were publicly released at the First International Congress in Oviedo, held on October 30, 1994, the date for the Oviedo cloth produced by Tucson turned out to be 710 AD and that by Toronto 679 AD. This is an impressive closeness, readily corresponding to the cloth's earliest-known historical origins, and therefore seemingly bad news for it genuinely dating back to the time of Christ. But given that in this instance the Oviedo cloth has no fire damage equivalent to that suffered by the Shroud in 1532, could this be another instance of a date skewed by a bioplastic coating?" (https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n50part1.pdf)

Date of the cloth - 8th century, no burning this time. The so called bioplasic coating was used by a Russian con man Kuznetsov to fool the syndologists of some money. It should not be taken very seriously. And it can be attested to the history records (they are so thin indeed and so flimsy anything can be attested). In any case the Oviedo cloth did not exist in the time of Jesus, it could not be on his face on the cross. And it was not the same as was described in the gospel.
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/VaticanNews.pdf
Is it time for new tests on the Turin Shroud? | Catholic Herald

As we see - scientists (and sceptics) are ready for new C14 Turin Shroud tests.
("...here is a point in which I agree with the authors: we could repeat the radiocarbon determination. New techniques have better resolution, so we could better define the date in which the Shroud of Turin was made. It will definitively be again medieval, but if people still want to confirm that, I have nothing against it.")

As well as sindologists. ("They conclude that new, rigorously planned testing is needed to establish a more reliable date ")

So only one entity is against the testing - Vatican. Why?
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,062
Italy, Lago Maggiore
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/VaticanNews.pdf
Is it time for new tests on the Turin Shroud? | Catholic Herald

As we see - scientists (and sceptics) are ready for new C14 Turin Shroud tests.
("...here is a point in which I agree with the authors: we could repeat the radiocarbon determination. New techniques have better resolution, so we could better define the date in which the Shroud of Turin was made. It will definitively be again medieval, but if people still want to confirm that, I have nothing against it.")

As well as sindologists. ("They conclude that new, rigorously planned testing is needed to establish a more reliable date ")

So only one entity is against the testing - Vatican. Why?
There is something happening in Vatican about this, on Vatican News they have showed attention to this ... Sindone, datazione da rifare? A Catania una conferenza internazionale - Vatican News

As usual, in the Catholic Church there are ... factions. One of this factions [which evidently is influential on Vatican medias] wants an other examination of the Shroud.
 
Mar 2014
111
NE USA
I don't want to be baffled, I would like to understand how this image originated. To say that it is solved 'until proven otherwise' is an utterly meaningless statement. I have explained just one of the difficulties that the image presents to those who would like to understand its origin, the exact nature of the pattern of discolouration, and this raises scientific questions. Could this discoluration only have been produced by radiation? Something that obviously has notable implications. This is a scientific question. The video that you post is totally irrelevant to any specific problem connected with the shroud. Merely to say 'it's a hoax' is an assertion that empty of all content.
It's more like "Begging the question" is what you're doing. Only radiation can do this, and it did not soak into the fibers as painting it would (wink wink supernatural explanation wink wink).

Making a paste with ascorbic acid (which is found in many foods), it can be brushed on a cloth. Starting with an outline of a figure the cloth can be placed on an hot surface. The paste will scorch an impression way before damaging the cloth as demonstrated in the video using lemon juice on paper. The cloth can be washed then other details added on.

I have shown the Occam's Razor on how the Shroud was made. Unless a sample from the actual image is tested showing otherwise then that's the most plausible answer rather than going straight to the least plausible. Your close up photos does not disprove it.

There's many more things I can (some have already) bring up to show that the shroud is a mediavel hoax. But if your mind will not let you come to the realization that there's nothing fantastic on how it's made, then what's the point? The handwaving will continue.
 
Sep 2014
1,211
Queens, NYC
The problem with the hoax theories, aside from the fact that the methods they use cannot reproduce the Turin Shroud effect, is that they don't explain what actually happened.
The head was always visible, it was the attraction in the Medieval and post-Medieval time.
But-the body was not. It was first shown in 1898. No reference to the body before then.
So-a hoaxer somehow got an imprint of a head and body, but then the body image fades? How so?
And, why wouldn't the people who procured the hoax try to have the image refreshed and used to attract money?
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,654
San Antonio, Tx
Read the whole thread: still stumped. Probably not ever going to know the real answer but that’s what makes this so delicious. I’m not a religious fanatic and have no religious agenda. This is a fascinating “object”. Maybe it’s a hoax. Not being an historian I have no chips in the game and no stake in it. I would find the shroud just as interesting if the person it depicts is not who many want it to be and would find it only marginally less interesting if turns out it isn’t Jesus.

Some solutions posed here in this thread suggest that the image was painted on which seems implausible because the coloring medium (painting) used would surely be readily discovered . Paint is paint. From what I’ve gathered here tells me that paint or-ant coloring medium should be readily discoverable.

The trouble with relying on “magic” gets us nowhere - an investigatory dead end. I would enjoy leaping over tall building with a singlebound -that’s not going to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cepheus
Mar 2014
111
NE USA
The problem with the hoax theories, aside from the fact that the methods they use cannot reproduce the Turin Shroud effect, is that they don't explain what actually happened.
The head was always visible, it was the attraction in the Medieval and post-Medieval time.
But-the body was not. It was first shown in 1898. No reference to the body before then.
So-a hoaxer somehow got an imprint of a head and body, but then the body image fades? How so?
And, why wouldn't the people who procured the hoax try to have the image refreshed and used to attract money?
The head/face cloth, and the whole body shroud are two different things. Why conflate the two?

Read the whole thread: still stumped. Probably not ever going to know the real answer but that’s what makes this so delicious. I’m not a religious fanatic and have no religious agenda. This is a fascinating “object”. Maybe it’s a hoax. Not being an historian I have no chips in the game and no stake in it. I would find the shroud just as interesting if the person it depicts is not who many want it to be and would find it only marginally less interesting if turns out it isn’t Jesus.

Some solutions posed here in this thread suggest that the image was painted on which seems implausible because the coloring medium (painting) used would surely be readily discovered . Paint is paint. From what I’ve gathered here tells me that paint or-ant coloring medium should be readily discoverable.

The trouble with relying on “magic” gets us nowhere - an investigatory dead end. I would enjoy leaping over tall building with a singlebound -that’s not going to happen.
Take some tomato sauce, and a white wash cloth. Paint a smiley face on it with the sauce. Now put the cloth over heat hot enough to scorch the sauce, but not the cloth. Wash the cloth.

Now imagine what an artist can do beyond your smiley face on a wash cloth.
 

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,309
There is something happening in Vatican about this, on Vatican News they have showed attention to this ... Sindone, datazione da rifare? A Catania una conferenza internazionale - Vatican News

As usual, in the Catholic Church there are ... factions. One of this factions [which evidently is influential on Vatican medias] wants an other examination of the Shroud.
Additionally, what I got from the article (using an Italian to English translator) that was significant, was that they have found sixteen "sampling values" to date.

I read that as sixteen different samples all with varying attributes or "time stamps."

It talks about the 1988 "Nature" study as having four.

It seems the more the shroud is studied, the more confusing things become.
 

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,309
The head/face cloth, and the whole body shroud are two different things. Why conflate the two?



Take some tomato sauce, and a white wash cloth. Paint a smiley face on it with the sauce. Now put the cloth over heat hot enough to scorch the sauce, but not the cloth. Wash the cloth.

Now imagine what an artist can do beyond your smiley face on a wash cloth.
I see two issues that are not anywhere close to being resolved. First of all, how was it made and secondly, when was it made. The chances seem slim to none that a conclusive answer is out there.